"DAE the Allies were just as bad??????"Just making sure there is consistency of definitions.
We definitely agree then.
"DAE the Allies were just as bad??????"Just making sure there is consistency of definitions.
We definitely agree then.
a "new" element of such treaties in declaring one nation to be the sole responsible and "guilty" for the outbreak of a multinational war at all.
I believe partially due to him refusing peace talks until the latest Coalition was basically at the border. Meaning France kept the borders the Coalition was going to suggest (most of modern France), but with a Bourbon rather than a Bonaparte.The clause clearly says that it's one side of an alliance, not one nation, to have committed the aggression.
And the notion is not new. Look up the Declaration of the Congress of Vienna in 1814. It states that Napoleon has placed himself outside the protection of the law, uses a word such as "criminal", and therefore defines Napoleon as a hostis humani generis - pre-emptively. Indeed it undertakes a commitment to use all means (meaning, to go to war against him) should he disturb peace.
This I strongly doubt. My take (I have no hard evidence for this) is that those who had soldiered there would be happy never to go back, save maybe for a small number of fanatics. Those who would go would be poor farmers and peasant day laborers who owned no land in Germany, who had served elsewhere or at most in supporting duties in the rear areas, and who would know about the place only or almost only what the government was telling them.
Not say that at all, just that throughout history the US government had done many bad things, like say slavery and what happened to the Native Americans, and the US public as sat by according to that definition of support. Same for European states and Empires. As bad as all that is, it still isn't the Holocaust or Generalplan Ost."DAE the Allies were just as bad??????"
From wikisourceIt was lesser the part about the responsibility for losses and damages, that caused the german embarresment but more the last, highlightened part, which was a "new" element of such treaties in declaring one nation to be the sole responsible and "guilty" for the outbreak of a multinational war at all.
Unless the Germans pull a massive growth rate I don't think they'll even be able to achieve it. I think they'll be able (and willing) to starve the east into submission and kill most of the people who live there in the first few years, but after that where are you going to attract all these colonists? It would take hundreds of thousands of people just to fill up Poland. My guess is that by about the mid 1950s they realize that it's kind of impossible and just leave the east alone as kind of an empty quasi-slave region.
It is rare when I see someone compare folks who want out of the EU to actual, real life Nazis.Yes
People approve of something that only ever seems an idea, albeit one they know is being put into practice
These are the same people you can ask of: Do they support the Nuremburg Laws?
By and large, yes they did. Because it all seemed so theoretical or, like Brexit fanatics, they can quote analogies to Romanian super-families on benefits, which sing to their prejudice
It is entirely possible for a population to approve a governmental project that then does not succeed. The question was not whether it would succeed, but whether it would be approved by the population.
Unless the Germans pull a massive growth rate I don't think they'll even be able to achieve it. I think they'll be able (and willing) to starve the east into submission and kill most of the people who live there in the first few years, but after that where are you going to attract all these colonists? It would take hundreds of thousands of people just to fill up Poland. My guess is that by about the mid 1950s they realize that it's kind of impossible and just leave the east alone as kind of an empty quasi-slave region.
Can you imagine losing your virginity to some random BDM girl only to be told that she's going to be your plantation wife and there's nothing you can do about it since the Fuhrer demands it and it's for the good of the Party/Aryan Race?In other words, when a boy at a Hitler Youth camp got a little too close to a similarly aged girl in the BdM -- which happened all the time -- then it would be accepted without question that they should start a family in the East.
How'd that work out for the USSR? People tend not to be simple machines you can upload ideology into and expect them to just follow along mindlessly forever, especially if leadership starts screwing up.One eager category, perhaps, would be the well-indoctrinated children born in 1933 or later, children who had never known anything except the Nazi state, and who would be unfailingly loyal to it. (They'd be loyal to the state before their parents, in Orwellian fashion.)
How'd that work out for the USSR? People tend not to be simple machines you can upload ideology into and expect them to just follow along mindlessly forever, especially if leadership starts screwing up.
How is that going to change from Nazis running the economy into the ground and the Eastern Project being a disaster? Plus there is the effect of younger generations not buying into the projects of their parents, like the 1960s revolts of youth.Well, to be fair the USSR ran into the problem of intellectual dissonance: the claims of their ideology continued to diverge further and further from the realities/results on the ground, and eventually that lead people to abandon the ideology.
Here, however, the Nazis ARE providing you with living space. The Slavs ARE being treated as sub-humans. Aryan children DO probably feel superior to others around them, as they're privileged by the government, society, media, ect. That re-enforces Nazi ideology.
What makes you think it would be a disaster?How is that going to change from Nazis running the economy into the ground and the Eastern Project being a disaster?
How is that going to change from Nazis running the economy into the ground and the Eastern Project being a disaster? Plus there is the effect of younger generations not buying into the projects of their parents, like the 1960s revolts of youth.
People need a physical manifestation of the problems they can't seem to solve. It can lead in some pretty unhealthy directions.I agree with most of your post but would prefer to say "The German people believe they had been wronged at Versailles". While Versailles was a harsh settlement, it was nowhere near as harsh as Brest-Litovsk or the break up of the Austro-Hungarian state or the Ottoman Empire. The belief stems I think from three main drivers.
1) the "stab in the back legend", put about by their own generals to save face.
2) the continuation of the RN blockade during the armistice, which we today would think harsh but at the time probably seemed necessary to the Allies to stop the Germans regrouping at fighting on.
3) the ''War Guilt' clause, which in historical hindsight was wrong in laying the moral responsibility for the War solely on Germany. I've read it was initially a 'War Damage' clause which would have been more acceptable since the Western Front was fought alamost entirely on French and Belgian territory.
Sorry about the nitpick, I do think that in practical terms you're right about how the German people would have been led to believe the Ostplan was justified. Is it fair to compare this to Confederates attitude to slaves?